Gun Rights in Low Income Urban Neighborhoods

[grampajack]

Once again you repeat the same pattern. When presented with a list of things to like about the guy, you seek out the one tiny thing that could be considered questionable, adding in your own baseless assumptions until you've created a monster in your mind where none likely exists. You're bleeding bias, and it shows.

I defend this guy because you're just making stuff up about him. You've taken one vague statement and fabricated an entire narrative around it based on nothing more substantial than your imagination. He used the word 'tyrant' in a sentence and now in your eyes he's running a terrorist training camp. It's so absurd it would be funny, if only it wasn't so sad.

I have no doubt Maj likely views the issues surrounding the BLM much different than I. But I saw absolutely nothing in the article that suggested he supports, endorses, or teaches violence against police. He's obviously not a felon, or else he wouldn't be able to do what he's doing, particularly under the light of media attention. And he's likely not teaching felons, for the very same reason. So at the end of the day, what do we have: Some law-abiding black guy who doesn't trust police teaching other law-abiding black guys how to defend themselves using the 2A legally. I've got no problem with that.

The shooter in Dallas wasn't a felon either. Just because someone isn't a felon doesn't mean anything. I don't care if he's an altar boy and an eagle scout and spends his weekends helping little old ladies cross the street. The politics he's promoting are dangerous.

And yes, he's teaching basic gun safety, and yes that's a good thing in and of itself. But, it doesn't excuse the fact that he's promulgating the same standard BLM line of thinking that so far has led to two US cities being badly damaged and at least a dozen or so officers being assassinated.

Like I said, God only knows what he's teaching those young black men. Is he just teaching them the basics of gun safety, or is he spreading his political propaganda as well? My suspicion is that he's using gun safety as a pretext for indoctrinating the youth.

Like I said before, this guy is effectively the training division of his local BLM movement, by his own admission, whether he supports it or not. He clearly stated that people are coming to him as a result of police shootings, and he's apparently okay with that. His comments imply that he thinks the so-called victims of recent police shootings should have "defended" themselves from the police. We here know that would have been murder in cold blood.

Wise men say you can judge a person by their associations. This guy is associating himself with the BLM by his own admission, training its members in the use of firearms, and he's being promoted by Vice. I would encourage everyone here to look into them; they're not 2A friendly, they're the opposite of patriotic, and they don't support anything that doesn't jive with their Marxist extremist agenda. The vast majority of their content is so vile that, again, I'm very surprised THR allows it to be linked here.

What Vice is attempting to do here is legitimize the BLM by linking it to the pro 2A movement, thereby also linking constitutionalists with them. A similar ploy was attempted with Occupy Wallstreet, which was, again, a Marxist extremist movement in the guise of a civil liberties organization. All they're doing is muddying the waters.

 

[Deanimator]

His comments imply that he thinks the so-called victims of recent police shootings should have "defended" themselves from the police. We here know that would have been murder in cold blood.

Would it have been "murder" in the case of the health care worker shot while the police were attempting to shoot another innocent person?

Did Charles Kinsey have a DUTY to LET himself be wrongfully shot?

Generally speaking, "in cold blood" does NOT include shooting back after having been SHOT by somebody trying to shoot another INNOCENT person.

I'm not speaking on the tactical merits of him shooting back, but then he not only didn't shoot at the North Miami cops, he very OBVIOUSLY did NOT even have a weapon of ANY kind. He clearly was going to get shot by the cops REGARDLESS of his actions. And he WAS in fact shot.

Your blanket statement is as inapplicable as anything Black Lies Matter says.

 

[grampajack]

Would it have been "murder" in the case of the health care worker shot while the police were attempting to shoot another innocent person?

Did Charles Kinsey have a DUTY to LET himself be wrongfully shot?

Generally speaking, "in cold blood" does NOT include shooting back after having been SHOT by somebody trying to shoot another INNOCENT person.

I'm not speaking on the tactical merits of him shooting back, but then he not only didn't shoot at the North Miami cops, he very OBVIOUSLY did NOT even have a weapon of ANY kind. He clearly was going to get shot by the cops REGARDLESS of his actions. And he WAS in fact shot.

Your blanket statement is as inapplicable as anything Black Lies Matter says.

Are those facts, or claims made by the BLM?

 

[Deanimator]

Are those facts, or claims made by the BLM?

Those are things largely stipulated by the North Miami PD THEMSELVES.

Black Lies Matter couldn't give a damn, NEITHER victim was a criminal.

Shooting of Charles Kinsey
When somebody tells three ENTIRELY different versions of the SAME story, it's usually a GUARANTEE that they're LYING.

Of course just as there are apologists for the guy who shot the cops in Dallas, there will inevitably be apologists for the cop who tried [three times] to kill one innocent person and ended up shooting another innocent person... then handcuffed him and let him bleed out for twenty minutes without rendering ANY assistance...

 

[grampajack]

Those are things largely stipulated by the North Miami PD THEMSELVES.

Black Lies Matter couldn't give a damn, NEITHER victim was a criminal.

Shooting of Charles Kinsey
When somebody tells three ENTIRELY different versions of the SAME story, it's usually a GUARANTEE that they're LYING.

Of course just as there are apologists for the guy who shot the cops in Dallas, there will inevitably be apologists for the cop who tried [three times] to kill one innocent person and ended up shooting another innocent person... then handcuffed him and let him bleed out for twenty minutes without rendering ANY assistance...

I remember this one now. Even the cop admitted it was a mistake afterwards. Then it seems the stories began to change. Have they tried him yet? I never heard what happened to him.

Of course I fully agree that a person has the right to defend themselves against anyone, including police. But when you say you're getting self defense training specifically because of the police, it paints quite a different picture.

The chances of anyone being involved in a bad police shooting are very low, like orders of magnitude lower than the risk of a home invasion, mugging, car jacking, crazy people, jilted lovers, etc. etc. So when you say your business has seriously increased due to people afraid of police, and wanting to get firearms training because of that, it's a bad situation. And it reflects the true nature of this "firearms training."

It's also important to note that in this situation, had the man shot a cop, he and his patient would have died in a hail of bullets, and the shooting would have been deemed justified by everyone involved. Unfortunately, there was just no good outcome in that situation, given the level of idiocy of that department.

ETA: I'll tell you one thing that needs to happen. When a cop is legitimately in the wrong, when he has abused his position, he needs to be punished. Cops enjoy a higher level of protection under the law because they're acting on behalf of the state, and that is blatantly unconstitutional. The cop in this situation needs to be charged with attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon, just like anyone else would be.

 

[Deanimator]

I remember this one now. Even the cop admitted it was a mistake afterwards. Then it seems the stories began to change. Have they tried him yet? I never heard what happened to him.

Of course I fully agree that a person has the right to defend themselves against anyone, including police. But when you say you're getting self defense training specifically because of the police, it paints quite a different picture.

The chances of anyone being involved in a bad police shooting are very low, like orders of magnitude lower than the risk of a home invasion, mugging, car jacking, crazy people, jilted lovers, etc. etc. So when you say your business has seriously increased due to people afraid of police, and wanting to get firearms training because of that, it's a bad situation. And it reflects the true nature of this "firearms training."

It's also important to note that in this situation, had the man shot a cop, he and his patient would have died in a hail of bullets, and the shooting would have been deemed justified by everyone involved. Unfortunately, there was just no good outcome in that situation, given the level of idiocy of that department.

ETA: I'll tell you one thing that needs to happen. When a cop is legitimately in the wrong, when he has abused his position, he needs to be punished. Cops enjoy a higher level of protection under the law because they're acting on behalf of the state, and that is blatantly unconstitutional. The cop in this situation needs to be charged with attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon, just like anyone else would be.

It's WAY too early for him to have even been indicted yet.

Truth be told, based on the behavior of the authorities, I think it's far more likely that I'll win the 2016 Presidential election as a write-in candidate than that he'll ever even be indicted, no matter HOW many lies he and the department get caught in.

The victim's suit has only just begun. I imagine they're looking for a way to blame him for his own shooting, or at least to impugn his character. It's SOP.

 

[Charlie Horse]

As I've posted before, I've been a LEO for 21 years. I spent 4 of those years working in the "inner city." (Here, the worst ghetto is not actually inside the city, but I digress...) The problem is NOT a lack of safety instruction. The problem I saw on every shooting I was involved in, was that someone felt the need to victimize someone else. These were not cases of negligent discharges, careless muzzle discipline, or a misunderstanding of the 4 rules. Someone decided to attack someone else, usually over something as silly as a careless insult, or a comment misunderstood to be disparaging. This is a place where life is thought to be cheap, and the citizens complain about not being protected, but will not cooperate. I investigated a shooting last year with no fewer than 30 witnesses, confirmed by security camera. How many would talk to me? One. What we have here is a true moral crisis, and no amount of safety training or talk of defending one's rights will solve this.

Please understand that this is not a race issue. What we have is a subset, largely of the African American culture, that has adopted brutality and lawlessness as a lifestyle. they refer to themselves here as "thugs," and I suppose that description fits them well. There are "adherents" to this lifestyle that are white, black, Asian and Hispanic here, but the numerical majority of them are black. There are plenty of good, honest, productive members of society from all four of these ethnic groups, so this is certainly not an indictment of people whose skin happens to be darker than mine. It appears to be a race issue because the media depicts black thugs more regularly than incompetent gun owners, and we all know how that stereotype hits home.

It's interesting that nobody mentioned what I saw as the most telling line in the whole piece

You only shoot when you have no other option. What George Zimmerman did, for example, was not acceptable.

It has been pretty well established by all of the reputable sources which I've seen that George Zimmerman, while guilty of bad decision making, shot in self defense as defined by Florida law. He, in fact, did exactly what Mr. Toure said was the appropriate response. The difference is that George Zimmerman was presented as racist murderer, while Trayvon Martin was an innocent victim. (My Peruvian brother in law said that the term "white-Hispanic" left him at a loss.) These are supported by neither the facts, not indeed any other aspect of reality.

It looks like Mr. Toure is trying to cloak his organization in garb that would appeal the larger gun owning community. At first sight, it looks good to say that he's fighting for the rights of the downtrodden. This quote is disturbing:

Black Guns Matter is about training. We've been going for a year, but because of incidents with law enforcement over the last six months...

He needs to be very clear what he is advocating. A cursory reading of this statement look as if he means that it is acceptable to use lethal force against LEOs in the legitimate discharge of their duties. Now, as a LEO, and as weird as if feels to say this, I can see that it is possible that might be the case, but the major cases that have made the media during the last six months have not even been close to justifiable use of force against the officer in question. i would counsel all to look past what you see in the media, and look for the facts that come out later. I will say from personal experience that I've been involved in incidents that were unrecognizable to me after the reports came out a few hours later. Don't assume just because you see it "on the news" that its what really happened. Usually, the truth comes out right after the smoke clears. Many times, it doesn't resemble what was told at first. This might be due to source error, intentional distortion, or a good old fashioned mistake. (They happen, but don't expect the media to own up to it since it does tarnish their reputation, but I digress again...)

The truth of the matter is that this man and is organization need to stand up to much more scrutiny before they are given a pass and accepted as part of the RKBA community.

 

[Deanimator]

i would counsel all to look past what you see in the media, and look for the facts that come out later. I will say from personal experience that I've been involved in incidents that were unrecognizable to me after the reports came out a few hours later. Don't assume just because you see it "on the news" that its what really happened. Usually, the truth comes out right after the smoke clears. Many times, it doesn't resemble what was told at first. This might be due to source error, intentional distortion, or a good old fashioned mistake. (They happen, but don't expect the media to own up to it since it does tarnish their reputation, but I digress again...)

The truth of the matter is that this man and is organization need to stand up to much more scrutiny before they are given a pass and accepted as part of the RKBA community.

1. What's your opinion of the North Miami shooting?
2. What's your explanation for THREE contradictory stories from the police?
3. Do you think that the North Miami PD has enhanced or degraded the public's trust in them by their own actions?
4. What's your opinion of the killing of Kathryn Johnston by the Atlanta PD?
5. Did you believe the Atlanta PD's story when it was first released to the media? If so, why? If not, why not?
6. Do you believe that the public trusts the Atlanta PD more or less since the shooting?

 

[Sistema1927]

While gun control has historically been used to intimidate minorities, I think that we are missing a bigger problem here.

If isn't just minority communities that are being denied their Second Amendment rights, the push is to disarm everyone by making firearms seen as "dangerous", "villainous", "despicable", and so on. That is why we have "zero tolerance" in schools that even extends to t-shirts and pop tarts.

The freedom haters will not be satisfied until all of us are disarmed, it is just that they started in minority communities. And, they seem to be doing a very good job of obtaining their desired results.

 

[Charlie Horse]

Nice try...

...but they are irrelevant to the points I raised only serve to feed your anti police bias. I said that it is possible that there are times when citizens need to use force against government, and that would include the police. You conveniently ignored this in order to go on another diatribe against the police.

I get it, you will side with anyone who dislike police, up to and including a man who is so self contradictory as to be laughable. Low road to say the least.

 

[Deanimator]

...but they are irrelevant to the points I raised only serve to feed your anti police bias. I said that it is possible that there are times when citizens need to use force against government, and that would include the police. You conveniently ignored this in order to go on another diatribe against the police.

I get it, you will side with anyone who dislike police, up to and including a man who is so self contradictory as to be laughable. Low road to say the least.

I asked you factual questions. That seems to have made you uncomfortable. My guess is that the answers would have called into question a number of assertions you made.

Not coincidentally, Black Lies Matter reacts in exactly the same way to questions about Michael Brown's behavior on the day that he was shot. They reacted in exactly the same way when the guy in Milwaukee got shot by police for not dropping his gun.

I'm not interested in narratives, yours or Deray McKesson's, only the truth.

 

[Charlie Horse]

Here we go again...

No, what you did was try to move the conversation away from what I said, and thereby kick over the checkerboard. I have made no assertions, but merely put forth my experience. Do you have contrary experience to relate, or more keyboard commando antics?

 

[Deanimator]

No, what you did was try to move the conversation away from what I said, and thereby kick over the checkerboard. I have made no assertions, but merely out forth my experience. Do you have contrary experience to relate, or more keyboard commando antics?

I responded DIRECTLY to what YOU said. Like Black Lies Matter, you realized that jeopardizes "the narrative". Like them, you cannot allow "the narrative" to be questioned.

Are you unable to answer the questions, or would the answers just contradict "the narrative"?

 

[Charlie Horse]

It gets even funnier...

No, reread what I wrote. You were the one one who drug incidents in Atlanta and Miami into something that I did not address. You have no idea what you're talking about, and admit such when you embarass yourself like this.

Accussing me of being a member of or in league with BLM is intellectual cowardice. I made the point that this man you have become so enamored made a self contradictory statement about the George Zimmerman \ Trayvon Martin affair. Somehow you construed that as me endorsing actions in other cities which I did not reference. You failed to refute ANYTHING I said, and then climbed upon the kitchen chair and began shrieking like a scared little girl.

At what point do these things logically follow? You apparently have no obligation to debate honestly, or admit that you have a bias, and perhaps a pathological one at that.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

As I've posted before, I've been a LEO for 21 years. I spent 4 of those years working in the "inner city." (Here, the worst ghetto is not actually inside the city, but I digress...) The problem is NOT a lack of safety instruction. The problem I saw on every shooting I was involved in, was that someone felt the need to victimize someone else. These were not cases of negligent discharges, careless muzzle discipline, or a misunderstanding of the 4 rules. Someone decided to attack someone else, usually over something as silly as a careless insult, or a comment misunderstood to be disparaging. This is a place where life is thought to be cheap, and the citizens complain about not being protected, but will not cooperate. I investigated a shooting last year with no fewer than 30 witnesses, confirmed by security camera. How many would talk to me? One. What we have here is a true moral crisis, and no amount of safety training or talk of defending one's rights will solve this.

Please understand that this is not a race issue. What we have is a subset, largely of the African American culture, that has adopted brutality and lawlessness as a lifestyle. they refer to themselves here as "thugs," and I suppose that description fits them well. There are "adherents" to this lifestyle that are white, black, Asian and Hispanic here, but the numerical majority of them are black. There are plenty of good, honest, productive members of society from all four of these ethnic groups, so this is certainly not an indictment of people whose skin happens to be darker than mine. It appears to be a race issue because the media depicts black thugs more regularly than incompetent gun owners, and we all know how that stereotype hits home.

It's interesting that nobody mentioned what I saw as the most telling line in the whole piece



It has been pretty well established by all of the reputable sources which I've seen that George Zimmerman, while guilty of bad decision making, shot in self defense as defined by Florida law. He, in fact, did exactly what Mr. Toure said was the appropriate response. The difference is that George Zimmerman was presented as racist murderer, while Trayvon Martin was an innocent victim. (My Peruvian brother in law said that the term "white-Hispanic" left him at a loss.) These are supported by neither the facts, not indeed any other aspect of reality.

It looks like Mr. Toure is trying to cloak his organization in garb that would appeal the larger gun owning community. At first sight, it looks good to say that he's fighting for the rights of the downtrodden. This quote is disturbing:



He needs to be very clear what he is advocating. A cursory reading of this statement look as if he means that it is acceptable to use lethal force against LEOs in the legitimate discharge of their duties. Now, as a LEO, and as weird as if feels to say this, I can see that it is possible that might be the case, but the major cases that have made the media during the last six months have not even been close to justifiable use of force against the officer in question. i would counsel all to look past what you see in the media, and look for the facts that come out later. I will say from personal experience that I've been involved in incidents that were unrecognizable to me after the reports came out a few hours later. Don't assume just because you see it "on the news" that its what really happened. Usually, the truth comes out right after the smoke clears. Many times, it doesn't resemble what was told at first. This might be due to source error, intentional distortion, or a good old fashioned mistake. (They happen, but don't expect the media to own up to it since it does tarnish their reputation, but I digress again...)

The truth of the matter is that this man and is organization need to stand up to much more scrutiny before they are given a pass and accepted as part of the RKBA community.

My thoughts exactly.

Well said.

 

[Deanimator]

No, reread what I wrote. You were the one one who drug incidents in Atlanta and Miami into something that I did not address. You have no idea what you're talking about, and admit such when you embarass yourself like this.

Accussing me of being a member of or in league with BLM is intellectual cowardice. I made the point that this man you have become so enamored made a self contradictory statement about the George Zimmerman \ Trayvon Martin affair. Somehow you construed that as me endorsing actions in other cities which I did not reference. You failed to refute ANYTHING I said, and then climbed upon the kitchen chair and began shrieking like a scared little girl.

At what point do these things logically follow? You apparently have no obligation to debate honestly, or admit that you have a bias, and perhaps a pathological one at that.

I asked you to apply your "reasoning" to other situations to see if there was a general principle to be elucidated or whether you were just spinning a "narrative".

By refusing to apply these supposed "principles" generally, it appears that "the narrative" takes precedence over any sort of principles.

Do you question the media's take ONLY if it puts the police in a bad light? Or as in the case of Kathryn Johnston, when it puts a victim in a bad light?

I didn't accuse you of being "in league with" Black Lies Matter, and you know it.

I accused you of using the same tactics.

What's more important, the truth or "the narrative"?

If the latter, how's that ANY different from DeRay McKesson and Black Lies Matter?

 

[Charlie Horse]

You spend WAY too much time...

...projecting your thoughts and feelings onto others, or maybe its just LEOs. Still, says FAR more about you and it does me. Lets try this again, and I'
ll go slow for you, I did not address the incidents you brought up because they are a smoke screen you are trying to use to move away from Mr. Toure's statement and set a trap for me. The fact that I see through a poor debating tactic seems to be driving you mad.

You have still not addressed what I did bring up. Care to try?

 

[Deanimator]

...projecting your thoughts and feelings onto others, or maybe its just LEOs. Still, says FAR more about you and it does me. Lets try this again, and I'
ll go slow for you, I did not address the incidents you brought up because they are a smoke screen you are trying to use to move away from Mr. Toure's statement and set a trap for me. The fact that I see through a poor debating tactic seems to be driving you mad.

You have still not addressed what I did bring up. Care to try?

You spend a lot of time making excuses for not answering questions.

Deray McKesson does the same thing.

 

[Charlie Horse]

Again with the BLM?

You DO realize that as a LEO, they would not welcome me as a member?

You spend a lot of time stuck on one thing, but thank you for admitting that you cannot answer what I did bring up. I have NOTHING to do with what did or did happen in Atlanta or Florida. We have a criminal justice system set up to deal with it. I will not enter into speculation, especially since i don't have all of the fact, and neither do you.

I have worked an internal affairs case. My work and testimony was responsible for putting another officer in prison, where he still sits to this day. This idea that you think you know me is laughable, and extremely juvenile. Your demonstrated fear and hatred make me wonder after your sanity.

Now, about George Zimmerman...

 

[Deanimator]

You DO realize that as a LEO, they would not welcome me as a member?

You do realize that this sort of deflection fools nobody?

Deray McKesson and Black Lies Matter engage in the same sort of misdirection and subterfuge.

It's obvious when they do it.

It's obvious when you do it.

You don't have to belong to Black Lies Matter or even agree with their positions in order to use the same TACTICS.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

#Lessmedia, if you twat or book or whatever. I don't do that.

Race isn't the issue but MSM is making it the issue. Whether you admit to it or not MSM has as much if not more influence as any branch of government on society in these days.

What this chap (whom the OP is referring to) is doing seems admirable at a quick look, but it's very plain to see how this could go down the wrong road. Either way it's likely the MSM will have another tread to stand on.

 

[Charlie Horse]

No, YOU are the one deflecting. YOU are the one to refuse to answer what I posted. You are the one who refuses to acknowledge that I agreed with you as far as the concept of using force against the government, to include LE.

Now, about George Zimmerman, or can you stay focused that long?

 

[Arizona_Mike]

So, what Maj Toure is doing is good as far as it goes but doesn't get to the root of the problem.

A standard what other trainers are held to???

Mike

 

[Deanimator]

No, YOU are the one deflecting.

Sorry, your misdirection is just not working.

Should one disbelieve the media only when it paints police in a bad light, or also when it paints victims in a bad light, as in the case of Kathryn Johnston?

That's a simple question which DIRECTLY addresses what YOU said.

The only reason NOT to answer it is because the answer would damage "the narrative" and "the narrative" takes precedence over principle and the truth.

That's how Deray McKesson and Black Lies Matter do things.

 

[Charlie Horse]

You're not very good at this...

Ok, since you are refusing to pay attention, let me set this out for you. Try and keep up.

I never said that the narrative should onld be questioned when LE is shown in a bad light. With me so far? I said that I have seen situations where what happened and what was reported in the media is not the same thing. Understand? The truth is that the media is usually not there for the event, and I have seen them twist facts and refuse to correct them.

The fact that you can't seem to follow basic logic is not misdirection. You accusing me of being a member of BLM is. It is another example of your intellectual cowardice.

Now, even you should be able to keep up with that. please, no more accusing me of belonging to BLM or not answering your questions, you know, the ones not related to what I posted? Will you or will you not address what I posted re: Zimmerman. If you do not, I will accept that a your inability to do so.